Symonds: stop-gap measure or Test mainstay?

For several years, the Australian cricket team has waited for Andrew Symonds to evolve from a one-day match-winner into a legitimate force in Test cricket. Instead, the Queensland all-rounder has been among the most frustrating cricket commodities in the country. In terms of raw physical attributes, he is unmatched. With power, versatility and the sharpest of eyes, he has been earmarked to assume Adam Gilchrist's role of middle-order enforcer when the wicketkeeper-batsman leaves the game. But in his 10 Tests, Symonds has yet to realise his full potential, averaging less than 20 with the bat and appearing constricted at the crease. At 31, and presumably on his last chance, could he still become the Test game-breaker that Australia hoped he would be? Or is he merely a temporarily fill-in until Shane Watson returns to full fitness?

Posted
by Alex BrownDecember 12, 2006 11:41 AM

LATEST COMMENTS

Symonds is not good enough, pure and simple. He's barely good enough to play at Shield level. I guess Punter's boys love him though; unlike MacGill and Hodge.

Posted by: dave on December 12, 2006 11:59 AM

Do you think England will do a Pakistan and forfeit the next Test
to the Ozies ?? Symonds looming in the covers is enough of a deterrent never mind his batting !!!

Posted by: MarkY on December 12, 2006 12:02 PM

We waited years for him to prove himself at the form of the game he was undoubtedly born to play before he actually did anything - how long are we going to wait for him to fire consistently in a game that is not even suited to him?

Posted by: Sam on December 12, 2006 12:08 PM

I thought Symonds was English?

Posted by: SF on December 12, 2006 12:20 PM

MarkY:
It would be less embarrassing for the poms methinks.

On Roy:
I want to see him do really well only to see if the selectors still drop him for Watto or Vogues.

Not sure that he can be as effective in tests when bowlers do not have to bowl close to the stumps for fear of wides, and everyone can be on the fence.

It will also be interesting to see if he can keep up his fielding brillance for five to six straight sessions.

But hopefully droppa Gilo gets to bowl to him, I'll be waiting in Broome for the catch.

Posted by: jimma on December 12, 2006 12:42 PM

His game is ideally suited to one day cricket. I think he gets confused when he gets to test level.

Michael Hussey knows how to change gears from attack to defence as required.

If Symonds could learn when to hold em and when to fold em, he would be a good test player.

Posted by: joseph on December 12, 2006 12:43 PM

By the way, I understand the selectors wanting to give older the guys the chance to keep going as a reward for all the success they've had (eg. Langer, Hayden etc.) but why do they say they want to pick Watson for the future, and because they want someone long term who may be able to match Andrew Flintoff, yet now, when presented a golden opportunity to elevate a Cameron White or someone similar, and they turn to a very unproven 31 year old who has earnt nothing in his checkered test career.

Posted by: Sam on December 12, 2006 1:04 PM

i think they have a toy cricket ball and weetbix figurine made up for him (but no sign of Gillespie yet...)

he is the new Graeme Beard. a bit of everything. and nothing....

Posted by: Peter Warrington on December 12, 2006 1:12 PM

Jimma, were you as harsh on Nathen Bracken after he dropped an absolute sitter (we're talking easiest catch of all time here) from Gibbs halfway through THAT innings earlier this year as you are to Giles? Not that I disagree - probably cost them the game.

Posted by: Sam on December 12, 2006 1:22 PM

Well, Symonds is only 31 so he's got a good 4 years if he can get a score. Freak knows why they picked him but he'd better brush up on his latin and read Michael Clarke's left buttock again or wherever it was Clarke inscribed "Carpe Diem".

Our fisherman Roy probably thinks it's a derogatory term for the dreaded European Carp.

What about Voges? No doubt he hails from the famous French Chardonnay region of Vosges, so the selectors have finally found a cheerful replacement for MacGill, probably a superior wine tosser but alas, an utter sourpuss.

Moet importantly have the English finally come up with a cunning plan?

At least they've told Vaughan to push off. Australia should do the same with Shane "I'll be fit for Adelaide,sorry,um Perth,nah,yep,um,Melbourne, definately Melbourne" Watson.
Surely they're not considering a bloke who hasn't played for more than a month?

Posted by: Pope Paul VII on December 12, 2006 1:24 PM

Sam the Toucan aka Rainman lay of the fruit loop genius.

Posted by: wicko on December 12, 2006 1:59 PM

Oh, a whole topic devoted to the nothing-rounder and it's very tempting to go in all Benny Hill-like with the smut an innuendo. But will it get past the censors? Only if dave writes it, apparently.

Symonds offers hardly anything to the Queensland team, and less to the Australian side. How he's managed to be recalled again is beyond me. Hopefully he's been picked as a 12th man, for his fielding, because Voges has much more of a future. As do many other young bats around the country, and it makes more sense (to me) to give one of those a run, if Symonds merely is a stop-gap.

Agree with The Pope re: Watson. Mightn't be such a good idea to pick him in Melbourne, given the amount of cricket he will have missed.

Posted by: Osmond on December 12, 2006 2:03 PM

Happy days, it seems that sam rainman toucan has been surpassed as the biggest clown on this site.

Welcome Pope Paul VII.

Chardonnay in Vosges? Are you sipping too much communal wine? How would chardonnay ripen in vosges? With a oxy welder would be the only way. However your attempt at wine connection was cute Pauly. The real connection is with the tight grained Quercus oak used for the coopering of barrels that have been used for white wine production

Posted by: wicko on December 12, 2006 2:05 PM

Hey Wicko, do you wanna make out with me?

Posted by: Osmond on December 12, 2006 2:06 PM

sam I apologise for the last posting. it is incomplete and makes little sense. They have removed some of my comments made in Bengali for some reason. Censorship seems to be well and truly SMH SOP

Posted by: wicko on December 12, 2006 2:08 PM

As a first-class batsmen, Symonds is about the 30th best in the country. No exaggeration. I'll name them if I have to.

As a bowler, he will ineffective as anything more than a changeup. If Symonds bowling style worked in Tests, Chris Harris would have 500 test wickets, Chris Gayle would be the current best all-rounder, and Hooper and Adams would be the greatest spin partnership in cricket history.

I rate Watson as a much better option both with bat and ball. Symonds is filler.

Posted by: Rob on December 12, 2006 2:10 PM

why osmond you are making me blush.

such talk is wholly inappropriate for the cricket forum one would have thought!

i am only interested in those with extensive barolo's

Posted by: wicko on December 12, 2006 2:12 PM

With England in the Gutter (not referring to sam the guttersnipe/rainman)it is an opportunity to let Roy Loose on them - it might be the turning point in his Test career - I am looking at the positive side now and will even go along with the selectors on their persistance with Watson - Australia will have to play very badly to lose from this juncture so what the heck ??

Posted by: MarkY on December 12, 2006 2:14 PM

MarkY, is "Roy Loose" a reference to Symonds' technique?

Posted by: Osmond on December 12, 2006 2:21 PM

Hey Wicko, welcome back he-of-the-ever-expanding-joke-repotoir. I can't understand a single post you've put on here anyway, so the editing is of little consequence. And you know far too much about the production and consumption of wine to be into others about being clowns. But I digress.

Great point Rob re. Symonds' standing in the country as a batsman. At least Watson has a bloody good average that would sit only behind about 6 players not currently in the test line-up. That automatically rules Symonds out in my opinion. Shahid Afridi can hit the ball a mile, throw like a rocket and send down some passable spin but he wouldn't get in the Australian side, so I don't understand why they want Symonds in there.

Posted by: Sam on December 12, 2006 2:37 PM

MarkY, Sam the guttersnipe. Like the cut of your gib old boy.

Roy can have a crack, but the only turn will be one of the U type straight back to the minor league with QLD.

I think his hair has always been an issue for the conservative selectors as well.

Posted by: wicko on December 12, 2006 2:40 PM

this is not a dating service osmond

Posted by: wicko on December 12, 2006 2:42 PM

Turn it up MarkY. The only thing that might run loose on Symonds is his ridiculous 'zinc' cream...

All I can say is that Symonds must have something on one of the selectors. Not as if he even talked himself into the team this time. Hang on a sec: there was his nicely timed release ... of his book

Posted by: dave on December 12, 2006 2:43 PM

No Osmond, Loose refers to your mental capacity ??? Read the newspapers on the weekend if you are too timid to watch the carnage!!! I am prepared to predict it rather than gloat over it afterwards.

Posted by: MarkY on December 12, 2006 3:25 PM

Symonds as the Kevin Bacon of Australian cricket? perhaps, perhaps, perhaps...

Posted by: Peter Warrington on December 12, 2006 3:34 PM

Wicko.

It's amazing what you'll half learn on the back of a wine bottle.

Besides, being infallible, I don't need to let truth and accuracy get in the way of a good story.

Go the Chardys, oaked of course.

Posted by: Pope Paul VII on December 12, 2006 4:13 PM

Sam,
The reason why the selectors won't pick Cameron White is because his bowling is ordinary. His figures are starting to suggest that he is now a batsman than can bowl a bit. Admittedly he is still a better option than either Symonds or Watson but he still has plenty of time (it just seems like he has been around for ever).

Posted by: Peter E on December 12, 2006 4:43 PM

I'd have Bollinger in my 11 as well.

Posted by: Pope Paul VII on December 12, 2006 4:48 PM

mmm - I'm starting to see a pattern here.

I think we're almost past the era of ODI and test teams with radically different personnel.

Martyn was recalled due to ODI form, and, I think, because he was already in SA and the ODI side was doing well.

Watson's in the frame because of his ODI form. Ditto Clarke. Hussey used that ddor.

Now Symonds. at 2-0 up, with a World Cup around the corner. Julien was speculating (I think it was he) that Voges may not play a test but will probably make World Cup squad?

Hayden, Langer, Warne and Clark are not in ODI squad. Clark might get there after his recent efforts.
Warne would be if he wanted to.

So, when Hussey finally opens for Aust, the teams could almost overlap. How cheerful!

Posted by: Peter Warrington on December 12, 2006 5:57 PM

I reckon Symonds should have been allowed to play the 'Deshies the time he was totally tanked.
Also he's a fantastic spinner, has great hair and a test record good enough to slot in against the Poms till Watson gets his hair ready... sorry hamstring ready.

Symonds is definitely good enough for the test team. I actually think he's on the verge of making a big score, vy vy quickly. Anyway we shall see in Perth, as I think he'll play ahead of Voges.

The real question for me though is, with Martyn gone from the World Cup where his place was guaranteed, who are we going to bat at 7???

Ie, the selectors will continue with Watson, and Hussey will move to 4, leaving Symonds at 5 and Clarke at 6. With Symonds and Watson as joint fifth bowler, no. 7 has to be a specialist batsmen. I would think Katich or Hodge or Jaques wouldn't be the ideal choice that far down the order - maybe Cosgrove or Voges could then come into the starting World Cup team?

It's still a shame that the selectors won't continue with Hayden opening though.....

Posted by: JM on December 12, 2006 8:54 PM

When did Joe Dawes go close to the Australian team? Corey Richards looked real promising for about two seasons and then just disappeared. Resurfaced briefly a few years back, than sank without trace.

Posted by: Sam on December 12, 2006 9:19 PM

The Barmy Army will hope Symonds is picked; it will allow them to respond to some of the absurd comments by some Aussies about the birthplace of some England players!

On a more serious note, the seperation of ODI and test players is an interesting one. Paul Collingwood was always regarded in some English quarters as strictly a one day player. I never agreed with that, but the fact is that it would have been him who would have missed out if Trescothick had been on tour. Look at his average so far this series. I don't hear anyone questioning his right to a place in the test team now.

Why Symonds has failed to fire with the bat in test matches is a mystery to me, but it could all change in one match, cricket is a funny game like that. The bigger mystery to me though, is how he gets his wickets when he bowls. Either he is very, very deceptive, or batsmen get complacent. Which is it?

Posted by: Malcolm on December 12, 2006 11:24 PM

JM, I'd drop Watson back down the order and find a specialist opener for the World Cup.

JM: Note I said first-class batsmen, in OD cricket I'd say Symonds is much higher than 30th. But here goes (by state):

NSW
Katich
Thornley
Jaques
Clarke
Haddin

QLD
Maher
Love
Hayden
Watson

WA
Gilchrist
Langer
M. Hussey
North
Rogers
Voges

SA
Lehmann
Ferguson

TAS
Ponting
Birt
Bevan
di Venuto

VIC
Elliot
White
Hodge
D. Hussey

Okay, only 26th, not 30th. But considering there's only 66 FC cricketers at any one time, and only up to 42 as batsmen...

I seriously think if the Queensland selectors were as ruthless as SA's - who recently ended Greg Blewett's career - he'd struggle to make their Pura Cup team on FC performances.

Posted by: Rob on December 13, 2006 12:20 PM

Surely the standout player for the just made first class XI was a bloke called John Buchanan, although I'd make someone else coach. For the never played for Australia XI I was once reliably informed by an old NSW player that Hugh Chilvers should be the first picked - I can see Cricinfo taking a pounding now.

And thirdly, how about an XI of played for Australia but less than they deserved. I can't be bothered working out the whole team but it would certainly include a solid middle order of Darren Lehmann, Barrie Shepherd and Grahame Thomas.

Posted by: David on December 13, 2006 12:39 PM

Yeah Rob, I know Buckingham made a heap of runs - I just liked him because he was a fat bearded part time keeper, and wanted to give him a start. I suppose I could have taken Peter Roach or Darren Ramshaw instead. Interesting to read Dave's "30 Better Batsmen Than Symonds" - great minds think alike.

Posted by: Sam on December 13, 2006 12:54 PM

I forgot Cosgrove - Symonds is relegated to 27th.

Posted by: Rob on December 13, 2006 12:57 PM

ooh, the never played matchesm would be called by Alan McGilvray, who opened the batting and the bowling for NSW Colts (during the Bodyline series.)

yep, Steffi Graf was 12th man for most (all?) of the tests in 80-1, played a heap of ODI that summer, and then contrived to miss the boat to England - Kent, Beard, Wellham, Alderman, T Chappell, Yallop all queue-jumped him.

he moved to WA and made some decent scores. bowling never quite good enough - ditto Trevor Laughlin.

Your eminence, I think a number of those Victorians were lucky to play that often. Good team Peter - one from before your time for it, a Queensland bowler called Peter Allan. You were talking the other day about selection policies. Not quite the same, but Allan got picked ahead of McKenzie for the Adelaide Test in 66, then did a Shane Watson, McKenzie came back in and took 6 for, and that, as they say, was that.

But on the rare occasions he was fit, Allan was a beauty. By the way, what was it like that day sitting in front of the Sheridan Stand for hours while the ground dried?

Posted by: David on December 13, 2006 1:57 PM

One more trip down memory lane spurred by PW's talking about McCosker. I have always thought this was an interesting version of how luck can change a career. At the start of 74/5 season McCosker's place in the NSW team was dodgy - he failed in the first one or two games and was close to being dropped. Against WA in Sydney, when he was about 2 he snicked Lillee straight to second slip, waist high, and the bloke dropped it (it might have been Laird). Rick the Rock then went on to score 100, then another in the second innings, then a couple more and within a few weeks was entertaining Mr Warrington at the Test Match.

But if that bloke had taken the catch.....

Posted by: David on December 13, 2006 2:09 PM

Symonds' selection explained...

"I'm pretty confident in him, I've watched him closely the last few days," Ponting said.

"I know he's been pretty excited to be around this group."

Posted by: dave on December 13, 2006 2:42 PM

"I had the Baggy Green in my hand a few days ago and smelt it. I love the smell - it smells of sweat and beer." Symonds get euphemistic.

Posted by: dave on December 13, 2006 3:32 PM

this is far more interesting than the measly Ashes!

1. McCurdy for the ODI team

and Graham Porter - played in a World Cup! (albeit during WSC)

2. can't remember much of the rain delay, we might have been there day 2, remember Freddie the flash batter (Three Toes) Titmus getting someone hit wicket - maybe Redpath. and must have been there later in the match because I'm sure I remember Greg Chappell nabbing one at short leg to claim the Ashes?? and Geoff Arnold shuffling in.

3. always loved Peter Allan's work with the maraccas. seriously, got to see this one-test wonder the other week, thanks to ABC 2, which has almost, but not quite, compensated for the loss of Fox Footy.

didn't Allan take 10-for in a shield match?

3. we on a non-Tonk rant the other week were reliving that 1974-5 shield match. multiple points of interest - bonus points! Wally Edwards scoring big runs! a young Terry Alderman! McCosker's 100 in each innings - batting 5 or maybe 6? WA's run chase in the second dig, being 8-190 off 20-odd overs chasing 210 or thereabouts, with Bruce Yardley swishing his way to a melodramatic 40-odd. WA playing 4 spinners - Mann, Paulsen, Yardley and Invers. etc etc - they don't make em like that anymore.

4. on selections and luck, Dougie nicked one from Geoff Rabbetborough at the SCG on his was to his recall-inducing 180-odd in 1980. would have better if he walked - we might not have lost in England in 1981. I blame that umpire!

Posted by: Peter Warrington on December 13, 2006 3:34 PM

Sam,

I think Symonds is definitely a better batsmen (this year, as opposed to back in the 1990s when Elliott and Blewett were obviously stronger) than the following:

Just because you can name 30 Australian batsmen from the 1990s and 2000s doesn't really mean anything...

Posted by: JM on December 13, 2006 8:33 PM

I reckon Mo's-Man Ed Cowan is a better bat than Symonds too. And Nathan Hauritz has been carving 'em up at four for the Randy Petes!

Posted by: Osmond on December 14, 2006 8:58 AM

No, but it does if they are still better than Symonds - which I think they are otherwise I wouldn't have written them. At best I could make a case for Blewett being struck off the "Better than Symonds" list bat that's it. The rest of them I'd stick by - particularly the 3 or 4 who are averageing over about 70 for the season - I'd say that would elevate them just slightly above Symonds.

Posted by: Sam on December 14, 2006 9:17 AM

JM, perhaps you have a point about Elliott and Blewett but not about the rest; Symonds is not as good as any of them.

Posted by: dave on December 14, 2006 9:27 AM

JM - I'd say at least 10 of the 20 "off the list" are so easily better batsmen than Symonds at the moment, you're losing a bit of credibility.

Now guys like Bailey and Borgas might be Sam's opinion, but Watson, North, Rogers, White, Voges, Elliot, Bevan, Lehmann, Cosgrove, Thornley in the very least have the runs on the board the last few seasons.

In Watson's case it's an easy comparison, they play for the same team.

Posted by: Rob on December 14, 2006 9:29 AM

Exactly Rob - and don't forget that Symonds' relatively 'average' average has been beefed up for 10 years in England. By the same token, so has the likes of Lehmann's, but he has proven himself in every arena in the world, and along with Elliot did so yet again last night.

Posted by: Sam on December 14, 2006 11:01 AM

That's correct: Symonds averages 37-ish in the Shield, which is less than most of the above-listed batsmen. (I checked Shield figures yesterday but relaised they hadn't been updated since last year - at least - so thought it would be misleading to post them). But Katich, for instance has an awesome record.

Posted by: dave on December 14, 2006 11:17 AM

Symonds should not have been selected. There are at least 5 young batsmen around the country that are on fire. This was the chance for one of them to get a chance. We need to start thinking about the future. I would have gone with Voges but one of unlucky Hodge, Jacques, White or Cosgrove would have been fine. Why this obsession with finding an Aussie Flintoff? Forget it. Also why aren't we giving Tait a chance on a fast WACA pitch?

I guess everyone who has bagged out symonds is eating their words after his 150! well done to him and good on the selectors for giving him another chance! A great player who should always have been there

Posted by: josh on January 7, 2007 11:03 PM

How good was my uncle Hugh Chilvers 3 seasons in a row took 100 wickets each season. He played for Northern District Cricket Club N.S.W. He never played for Australia but should have